October 26, 2016

Halloween came early in Philadelphia. A new documentary wants to trick folks into believing that “alternatives,” i.e., charter schools, “compromise [traditional public schools’] ability to deliver quality education to all students.” The film, “Backpack Full of Cash,” premiered at the Philadelphia Film Festival on October 22nd.

I skipped the screening. I didn’t want to be spooked by the ranting of the usual suspects.

Besides, I believe the money should follow the student. Parents seek out “alternatives” because traditional public schools are not delivering quality education to their children.

Narrated by Oscar winner Matt Damon, the film wastes little time revealing its point of view. Damon, a well-documented skeptic of what critics call “corporate” education reform, begins the documentary with a dark warning:

“A battle is underway over who should control public education,” he says. Parents, teachers and activists are up against a well-organized coalition headed by business leaders and conservatives.”

Yeah whatever, dude. Tell that crap to John King, Acting Secretary of Education. Prior to joining the Department of Education, Dr. King was a co-founder of Roxbury (Massachusetts) Preparatory Charter School.

Dr. King recently spoke before the National Press Club. During the Q&A, he said, “I think any arbitrary cap on the growth of high-performing charters is a mistake in terms of our goal of trying to improve opportunities for all kids.” BOOM!

The producers of “Backpack Full of Cash” take creative license with the facts. But the fact is, charters work.

In an essay published in Essence magazine, singer and songwriter John Legend wrote:

Charter public schools are not the solution to every problem that’s plaguing public education. The NAACP is right to raise some questions over the practices of some individual charter schools. There are schools of all models - district, charter, magnet, private - that are failing to educate our kids properly and accountably. States and districts should hold all of these school types to high standards of accountability.

What’s shortsighted about the NAACP’s decision is that it’s ignoring the many successful charter schools that are delivering results for many communities. In New York City, third grade charter school students outscored students at district schools in math and in English. Charters here are closing the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged Black students and their more affluent white peers.

We are absolutely stunned that the NAACP voted to put distortions, lies and outdated ideologies about charter schools above what is in the best interest of our children. It is inexplicable to me that such a storied organization, responsible for leading a powerful civil rights movement to tear down barriers for generations of Black people, would erect new ones for our children.

When Al Shanker and others envisioned charter schools, they proposed teacher-led laboratories where educators and parents could explore and incubate ways to improve instruction. Charters were intended as part of—not a replacement for—the public school system. But some who promote and fund charters today have other designs, and the explosion of unaccountable charters has drained resources for children, forced the closing of neighborhood schools and destabilized districts and communities in cities like Philadelphia and Detroit.

The chorus of those of us who have been sounding the alarm on the many long-standing structural and governance problems that have plagued charters in recent years is growing. The time is right to pause and reassess.

The NAACP appointed a special taskforce to “lay the foundation for a national stakeholder convening” (read: “reassess”). The taskforce will be chaired by Alice Huffman who, among other things, serves on the Wells Fargo Company Advisory Committee. Taskforce members include Adora Obi Nweze, Chair of the NAACP Education Committee and past recipient of the Florida Education Association President’s Award.

The nation’s two largest teachers unions contributed nearly $400,000 to the outfit between 2011 and 2015, and other labor unions are also financiers.

I have called out the NAACP for its “partnership” with predatory lender Wells Fargo. Now in obeisance to its AFT and NEA paymasters, it’s back to the bad old days when the NAACP was called the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People.

In the run-up to the National Board meeting, the New York Times chastised the NAACP for figuratively standing in the schoolhouse door:

These schools, which educate only about 7 percent of the nation’s students, are far from universally perfect, and those that are failing should be shut down. But sound research has shown that, when properly managed and overseen, well-run charter schools give families a desperately needed alternative to inadequate traditional schools in poor urban neighborhoods.

[…]

For many parents and students, a charter school is the only route to a superior education. In advocating a blanket moratorium on charters, the N.A.A.C.P. would fail to acknowledge what’s happening to children who need and deserve a way out of the broken schools to which they have been relegated.

The editorial noted the NAACP “has struggled in recent years to win over younger African-Americans, who often see the group as out of touch.” With this misguided policy, the struggle continues.

September 22, 2016

I am a policy wonk and longtime “CBC Week” attendee. In DC, policy positions typically follow the money. So I was wary of CBCF ALC education sessions in light of the fact that the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are conference sponsors.

Congressman Bobby Scott, Ranking Member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, hosted the Education Braintrust.

The focus of the braintrust was “evidence-based programs and best practices for increasing black children’s opportunity for success in today’s education and workforce systems.” Rep. Scott asked presenters to do more than “celebrate the problem.” He called on them to offer solutions. So surely someone would offer charter schools as a solution. No one did.

I dutifully took notes as speaker after speaker extolled the importance of parental involvement. Dr. George McKenna noted that the California Department of Education mandatesfamily engagement.

Although parental involvement is the hallmark of charter schools, speakers dare not say their name at a conference sponsored by the AFT and NEA.

In his remarks at the CBCF 46th Annual Phoenix Awards Dinner, President Barack Obama spoke about his legacy.

During National Charter Schools Week, we celebrate the role of high-quality public charter schools in helping to ensure students are prepared and able to seize their piece of the American dream, and we honor the dedicated professionals across America who make this calling their life's work by serving in charter schools.

Charter schools play an important role in our country's education system. Supporting some of our Nation's underserved communities, they can ignite imagination and nourish the minds of America's young people while finding new ways of educating them and equipping them with the knowledge they need to succeed. With the flexibility to develop new methods for educating our youth, and to develop remedies that could help underperforming schools, these innovative and autonomous public schools often offer lessons that can be applied in other institutions of learning across our country, including in traditional public schools.

[…]

Charter schools have been at the forefront of innovation and have found different ways of engaging students in their high school years -- including by providing personalized instruction, leveraging technology, and giving students greater access to rigorous coursework and college-level courses. Over the past 7 years, my Administration's commitment of resources to the growth of charter schools has enabled a significant expansion of educational opportunity, enabling tens of thousands of children to attend high-quality public charter schools. I am committed to ensuring all of our Nation's students have the tools and skills they need to get ahead, and that begins with ensuring they are able to attend an effective school and obtain an excellent education.

The failure to include charter schools among best practices to prepare black boys and girls for lifelong success does not do justice to President Obama’s legacy.

September 05, 2016

In an AlterNet piece, Steven Rosenfeld outlined “10 Reasons Why the NAACP Is Absolutely Right About a National Moratorium on Charter Schools.” I had planned to write a point-by-point rebuttal, but Rosenfeld’s diatribe is more opinion than fact. I remembered the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan often said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

Rosenfeld is entitled to his opinion so I’ll share a few facts. In Philadelphia, nearly one-third of students attend charter schools. There are 83 charter schools, two of which -- MaST Community Charter School and String Theory Charter School -- have a combined waiting list of more than 10,000 students.

WHEN SCHOOLS get it right, whether they’re traditional public schools or public charter schools, let’s figure out what’s working and share it with schools across America.” Hillary Clinton was booed at the National Education Association’s summer convention for that self-evidently sensible proposition. The reaction speaks volumes about labor’s uniformed and self-interested opposition to charter schools and contempt for what’s best for children. Now the union has been joined by a couple of organizations that purport to be champions of opportunity.

In separate conventions over recent weeks, the NAACP, the nation’s oldest black civil rights organization, and the Movement for Black Lives, a network of Black Lives Matter organizers, passed resolutions criticizing charter schools and calling for a moratorium on their growth. Charters were faulted by the groups for supposedly draining money from traditional public schools and allegedly fueling segregation. The NAACP measure, which still must be ratified by the board before becoming official, went so far as to liken the expansion of charters to “predatory lending practices” that put low-income communities at risk.

No doubt that will come as a surprise to the millions of parents who have seen their children well-served by charters and to the additional million more who are on charter school waiting lists for their sons and daughters. “You’ve got thousands and thousands of poor black parents whose children are so much better off because these schools exist,” Howard Fuller of the Black Alliance for Educational Options told the New York Times.

This information likely comes as a surprise to opponents of charter schools. But their minds are made up; don’t confuse them with the facts. Indeed, Rosenfeld dismissed the WaPo editorial saying “it is deeply wrong to belittle the issues that affected communities raise—which is the basis for the NAACP’s draft resolution.”

The basis for African American parents’ support of charter schools is the fierce urgency of now. As income has become a proxy for race, they reject the notion that their zip code is destiny. Black parents don’t want their children trapped in failing traditional public schools because they live in the “affected communities.”

Access to charter schools empowers low-income and working-class parents to exercise their right to choose the best educational environment for their children. Fact is, black students make up 27 percent of charter school enrollment nationwide.

The bottom line for Rosenfeld is, well, the bottom line. In his worldview, charter schools “divert” money from traditional public schools. By contrast, supporters believe the money should follow the student. For them the bottom line is: Are students learning the three Rs – reading, writing and arithmetic?

August 26, 2016

You know that moment when you have an epiphany. I experienced such a moment while listening to EdChoice President and CEO Robert C. Enlow at the Amplify School Choice Conference earlier this month. Amplify School Choice is a project of the Franklin Center.

Enlow spoke about school choice trends across America and the phenomenon of institutional isomorphism. He explained that over time institutions begin to look like each other. Enlow said that charter schools are beginning to look like traditional public schools, noting that public support for charter schools is decreasing. He warned that advocates are losing the argument for school choice.

I’m a longtime supporter of school choice. That said, Enlow attached a process to my inchoate concern about Philadelphia’s charter schools. To be sure, there are high quality charter schools in the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection, including Boys Latin, KIPP and Mastery. High performing schools show love not by merely instilling discipline; they instill in their students a thirst for learning.

Bad charter schools mirror traditional public schools with respect to student performance, financial mismanagement and conflicts of interest. In Philadelphia, the decision to revoke a charter school’s license is subject to political pressure. As a result, chronically low-performing and mismanaged charter schools are allowed to operate for years.

It sounds obvious, but don’t forget to Google any schools you’re looking at, to make sure they weren’t once unexpectedly shut down or run by a CEO who pleaded guilty to theft.

Comedian John Oliver honed in on that recommendation in a recent edition of his HBO show "Last Week Tonight."

In an open letter to Oliver, Boys' Latin Charter School Co-Founder Janine Yass wrote:

I have been involved in education reform for over 15 years in the poor city of Philadelphia where over 40,000 children are on charter school waiting lists to escape the horrendous public school system.

Yass added:

Yes, bad ones should close, but what about the bad public schools that continue to operate half full with no teaching going on?!

The response to bad charter schools is accountability, accountability, accountability. The importance of accountability was underscored by Colorado state Rep. Angela Williams during a panel discussion at the Amplify School Choice Conference. Williams said there should be clear and comprehensive accountability standards, and automatic closure of lowest-performing schools.

What are the laws in your state that create a platform for accountability? We don’t need to be sending our kids to failing schools, whether charter or traditional public schools. I’m not going to stand by and send our kids to failing schools. Charter schools can be successful with the right funding and right governance.

On August 24, Gov. Tom Wolf announced the creation of a new office within the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the Division of Charter Schools. Wolf said in a statement:

Charter schools play an important role in our education system, but that role must be accompanied by sufficient oversight. Establishing this new division within the Department of Education will allow us to maximize our resources to not only ensure charters are being properly supported, but that they are being held accountable to taxpayers.

Bob Fayfich, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, said in a statement:

If this initiative is consistent with other actions by the Governor relative to undermining the viability of charter schools, regardless of how effective they are in educating children, then this new Charter Office is something to be concerned about. If, however, this new division is truly dedicated to listening to charter schools and improving public education for all students in Pennsylvania, then we will be supportive.

The fact that no charter school has been consulted in the creation of this office is not a good start, but we will see how the office is funded and staffed and watch closely what it actually does.

Charter school advocates rightly question Wolf’s motive, but there is no question that school choice must be about more than autonomy. Advocates must embrace accountability in equal measure. To that end, they should ensure that a “platform for accountability” is codified in House Bill 530 which the legislature is expected to take up in the fall.

The promise of school choice was that parents would be able to choose from a menu of quality charter schools. And that competition would improve traditional public schools. In Philadelphia, school choice is morphing into two sets of low-performing schools with different governance. With rigorous accountability, charter schools will amplify qualitatively better choices.

Within days of signing off on the sweetheart deal, school officials were in Harrisburg lobbying for a $2-per-pack cigarette tax. They said without more money, the schools would not open on time.

As they say, be careful what you ask for. The cigarette tax was passed. Tucked inside the bill was an amendment that required the school district to accept applications for new charter schools. No new charters have been authorized since 2007.

Meanwhile, a group of teachers, educators, parents and community activists is circulating an open letter to “stop the 40 charters” on the grounds that “opening more charters is not a sensible option for our already cash-starved district.” They added:

While there seems to be no panacea for the amalgamation of social issues that affect children’s school experiences, increasing the number of charter schools, and thus, competition, in education does not help to solve any of our city’s problems.

Out of the blue, Mark Gleason, executive director of the Philadelphia School Partnership, made an offer he hopes the “cash-starved” district could not refuse: $25 million to approve up to 15,000 new charter seats. PSP offered an additional $10 million to cover stranded costs. Gleason said in a statement:

We have been listening to the concerns of education stakeholders, parents and public officials about the potential financial impact of charter expansion on District schools and students. We agree that financial impact is an important consideration, and it has become clear that cost concerns are hindering the SRC from making decisions about the charter applications in the best interest of kids and families who are eager for a new opportunity to attend a great school.

The best way to ensure that the SRC can make decisions based solely on the merits of these applications – and give more students access to a high-quality education – is to help the District manage the stranded costs associated with charter expansion.

Critics accuse PSP of fuzzy math. They District spokesman Fernando Gallard said “half a billion dollars is not off the mark.”

The stranded costs issue was on the agenda at the Amplify School Choice conference. Prof. Benjamin Scafidi, a senior fellow with the Freidman Foundation for Educational Choice, said don’t believe the hype:

The mayoral race is the backdrop to the charter expansion drama. Putative frontrunner Anthony Williams said in a statement:

The school district needs more funding, and Philadelphia public school students will benefit from those additional dollars, especially as they do not draw from additional school resources. We must ensure that the funding stream is revenue-neutral or net-positive, and three years may not be enough time. We must also couple these funds with reinstating the charter reimbursement and a fair funding formula to get the resources we need for every student and put the district in better fiscal shape going forward.

Our school district should not accept PSP's $25 million. Not only does that offer cover a fraction of the nearly $500 million required to enroll just 15,000 more students in charters, but the donations come from unnamed millionaires who already have far too great an influence in our upcoming mayoral election.

For the school district and SRC, “it’s like the more money [they] come across, the more problems [they] see.”

February 05, 2015

Last week was National School Choice Week. To mark the occasion, a select group of bloggers was invited to participate in the Amplify Choice conference, a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.

I’m a product of the New York City public schools. I’m also the beneficiary of school choice. I grew up in Bed-Stuy. I attended the neighborhood elementary school. To get a better education, I chose to go to middle and high school in Bensonhurst, where I was enrolled in a program for gifted students.

The concept of school choice is not a new phenomenon. From the education reforms of the Progressive Era to the Freedom Schools of the Civil Rights Movement, parents have sought alternative educational programs for their children.

In 1972, the Philadelphia Board of Education established the Office of Alternative Programs that was “designed to offer public school youngsters educational experiences different from those that have been offered traditionally and those that are currently provided in ongoing school district programs.” In a paper published by the Journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Robert C. Hutchins wrote:

Educational options are being provided through a network of alternatives that make it possible for students and teachers to choose an educational experience that they feel is most appropriate for them. Establishment of more public schools of choice is the direction in which Philadelphia is heading.

Fast forward to today, Philadelphia has 84 public charter schools with a combined enrollment of 67,000 students, or one-third of all public school children. African Americans represent 62 percent of charter students, a higher percentage than in district-run schools (52 percent). While the education establishment debates the academic performance of charters, parents are making their own assessment about what educational environment is most appropriate for their child.

According to a survey from the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative, 62 percent of parents with children in traditional public schools have considered sending their child to a charter school. Among African American parents, 68 percent consider a charter school a viable educational option. The survey also found that 90 percent of charter parents rated their school as “good or excellent.” By contrast, only 40 percent of parents with children in traditional public schools think the school district as a whole is doing a good or excellent job.

Still, critics try to discredit charters by pointing out the leadership of the charter school movement is overwhelmingly white. So at the Amplify Choice Conference, I asked Virginia Walden-Ford, a cofounder of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, whether African American parents express concern that the face of school choice is white. Walden-Ford said:

Parents want to see changes. They’re not caught up on who is the face of school choice. No matter what the face is, they say this is something that will benefit their children. They don’t care what the face looks like.

Back in the day, Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff wrote “Give the People What They Want.” What did the people want? The “people want better education now.” As a songwriter, Gamble had his finger on the pulse of the community. So it’s not altogether surprising the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee is a charter school operator.

Thousands of students are on charter school waiting lists in Philadelphia. It’s clear the people want more educational choices for their children.